No Free Discussion from Obama Appointee Vilsack

USDA Fires Organic Farming Specialist for Expressing Opinions

By Jeff Deasy, AlterNet
Posted on January 18, 2011, Printed on January 22, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/149577/

The free exchange of ideas is so essential to a healthy democracy, it was particularly disturbing to learn that Mark D. Keating was terminated as an Agricultural Marketing Specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program (NOP) for expressing personal opinions in communications with the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB).
In an interview, Mr. Keating said the official reasons given for his termination were a "complete fabrication." He added, "I was the guy who knew too much."
Mr. Keating brought 20 years of experience in various aspects of organic farming to his government service. He was once an organic farmer himself and played a key role in the development of the USDA's organic standards and the establishment of the sustainable agriculture program at the University of Kentucky. "Abandoning traditional processes has brought new problems," he said.
Mr. Keating is convinced that it was the "political hierarchy" at the USDA rather than knowledgeable civil servants who were responsible for his termination. When asked whether powerful corporate interests had sought his dismissal, he said he had no evidence to support such a claim. He did say that giant agribusiness believes it has provided the "most abundant and cheapest food supply in the world" and the criticism leveled at it by sustainable farming advocates has led to "hurt feelings" in the industry.
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals, is urging the NOP to reverse its decision. PEER contends that Mr. Keating did not contradict official policy, but was aiding an advisory panel in formulating recommendations for official policy.
PEER argues that his termination:
• Violates Obama administration policies encouraging "free and open inquiry" by scientists and other technical specialists; and
• Is at odds with policies adopted by other agencies, such as the Department of Interior, promoting the "free exchange of ideas" while formulating policy.
Mr. Keating's job description called for "wide latitude to exercise independent judgment" to "influence, motivate, and persuade the very diverse constituent population of the NOP." Since he was hired just last April, Mr. Keating was still a probationary employee with limited rights to appeal his dismissal.
If, as Mr. Keating maintains, the official reasons given for his dismissal were fabricated, then why was he fired? He says the truth lies in the answer to, "Who in the political leadership would object to my work?"
Undue Corporate Influence at USDA?
Last September, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published the results of a survey of USDA scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety. "Hundreds of scientists and inspectors responsible for food safety have personally experienced political interference in their work, and that's bad for public health," said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program at the time. "Both the administration and Congress need to act."
More than 1,700 respondents took part in the survey, which was conducted for UCS by the Iowa State University Center for Survey Statistics. Most of the respondents had worked at their agency for more than ten years.
Disappointing Appointments at USDA
Back in 2008, Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association (OCA), told Democracy Now! about his opposition to the appointment of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture:
"Vilsack has been an ardent promoter, not only of genetically engineered foods and crops, but also of the extremely controversial biopharmaceutical crops, which involves [inaudible] pharmaceutical drugs or industrial chemicals into food crops. Even, you know, quite a few people in the biotech industry are alarmed by these biopharmaceuticals, since you could get dangerous drugs throughout the food supply."
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, "Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary - his weakest selection so far."
During the presidential campaign many sustainability advocates were encouraged by this statement from then candidate Obama, ""We'll tell ConAgra that it's not the Department of Agribusiness. It's the Department of Agriculture. We're going to put the people's interests ahead of the special interests."
Jeff Deasy is president of American Feast.

© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/149577/

STOP VILSACK

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has been proposed as the new Secretary of Agriculture. I have already expressed by my vote against this nomination through the OCA petition found via the links at the end of the article quoted below.

Vilsack of course is a party hack and is looking for his reward in the form of a handout of a plum position in the new administration, after 20 January, 2009.

Vilsack is very closely entwined with Monsanto and genetically engineered food. And for those who do not know about the hazard of GMO food to health and food supplies, I would encourage you to do more research.

This does stirke me as odd because Vilsack was closely connected to the "ONE" campaign to stop world hunger and poverty as reported by my youngest daughter when she was Director of the Better Safer World Campaign.

In reality, Hunger and Poverty just don't appear to be important to Monsanto or Vilsack.

More on Vilsack Appointment as New USDA Chief

* Several Perspectives on Vilsack
By Jill Richardson
La Vida Locavore, December 30, 2008
Straight to the Source

It's been a few weeks since Obama tapped former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to head the USDA. The immediate consensus sounded to me like "it could've been worse" from just about everyone I spoke to, but now there are a number of different opinions online so I think it is useful to take a look at several of them together.

Three posts on Huffington Post range from pessimistic, to hopeful, to absolutely joyous:
1. The Center for Food Safety's Andrew Kimbrell: Obama's Choice of Vilsack: AgriBusiness as Usual at USDA?
2. Eating Liberally's Kerry Trueman: Maybe Vilsack Won't Suck?
3. Vilsack's friend, Jennifer Donahue: Vilsack Best Possible Secretary of Agriculture

Good to know that Vilsack's own friends (or at least one of them) think he's the perfect man for the job. I didn't even have to read Kimbrell's title to know what he thinks of Vilsack - his organization is a MAJOR thorn in the side of biotech companies and Vilsack is a known buddy of Monsanto. (Strangely, ABC News uses the same pun as Kimbrell, calling Vilsack "Agribusiness As Usual.") Kerry kind of comes down the middle, saying honestly that she doesn't know what to make of the Vilsack appointment (after acknowledging a number of problems with him as USDA head). She went to Denise O'Brien for advice, as did I. O'Brien sounds hopeful, but let's also remember that an optimistic attitude is probably a political necessity for her right now. With luck, O'Brien will soon receive an Obama appointment herself.

According to an op ed in a Des Moines paper, Vilsack needs courage to face up to Big Ag. However, I'm not sure if the problem is one of "courage." It might be more like "motive." After all - Kimbrell points out that Vilsack has received federal subsidy money from the USDA and he's worked as a lobbyist on ag and renewable energy issues. Furthermore, he was named "Governor of the Year" by the biotech lobby and he's strongly pro-ethanol. So is there any point in asking the question the Des Moines op ed asks?

Vilsack is one of us "folks" with deep Iowa roots. The question is: Does Vilsack get marching orders from common, concerned citizens or the four horsemen of the Big Ag gravy wagon: Dupont, Monsanto, ADM, Cargill? We are in an era of rapidly diminishing returns from factory farming. New ways of thinking, new ways of farming, novel economic solutions are necessary.

The petrochemical-powered agriculture juggernaut rolls on roughshod to deplete once-fertile soil, poison our waters and churn out unhealthy, nutrient-depleted factory food. Our children are the first generation in history that will have a shorter life span than their elders as a direct result of our wrong choices.

Big Ag has the carbon footprint of a 900-pound gorilla. Vilsack joins Sens. Tom Harkin, Charles Grassley and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey to defend the ag empire. They all answer to the ag-biz lobby. Our children deserve the quality of water and soil that our grandparents stewarded into our present generation. Future generations have no lobby in Washington.

If we continue with Big Ag and business as usual, Iowa family farms have no viable future. Half of our rich, vital top soil has already been extracted and sloughed down the Mississippi River along with a toxic soup of petrochemical runoff. The dead zone now extends into the Gulf 500 miles beyond the river delta. At the present rate of soil depletion, the Midwest Dust Bowl is only one generation away.

Yet another Des Moines Register article notes that Vilsack's Back on the Political Power Climb. Well, great. In that context, is there any question about who Vilsack will be answering to? The only thing that makes me any LESS pessimistic is the New York Times op ed "Fixing Agriculture" that notes that Vilsack "has the merit of being unsatisfactory to both extremes of the farm-policy debates." Hmm... if the other side is unhappy about something, then there's gotta be some good in it for me. Sadly, a third Des Moines Register article predicts Vilsack Not Likely To Take USDA in Radical Direction.

Then there's John Nichols from The Nation, who calls Vilsack A Cautious Food and Farm Pick. Nichols' article is perhaps the best one I've seen of the entire bunch, explaining how tightly the Ag Secretary's job ties not only to agriculture but to trade, energy, and food issues that touch all of us - even the 98% of Americans who don't farm. Nichols says

The pick that offers the most insight into where Obama will lead the country is his selection the most misunderstood position in the Cabinet: secretary of Agriculture.

He follows that up by saying: "Unfortunately, the answer is not a bold one" and "Obama could have done better, much better." Nichols ends by echoing a hope that I and 60,000+ others share: that Obama will make bolder choices for USDA Under Secretaries. (PLEASE sign the petition that makes this request of the Obama team... the Obama transition team and Obama's top advisers are aware of this petition so your signature does count!)

The most decisive commentary of all comes from Organic Consumers Association, who immediately launched the site StopVilsack.org.